1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

6000 years or millions of years ?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by betchevy, Apr 24, 2007.

  1. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Little correction....It is 2 Peter 3:8 that says But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....God is surely taking His time...No need to get rushy anyway. Mankind needs to endure lots of patients...1 day (to God) = 1000 human years (to mankind) and 1000 human years = 1 day...If we get too deep about it... in this generation...we physically die literally less than one day to God. Even in the days of Adam...He lived about 930 years... that is almost one day to God. Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  2. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    Very good superjag you are getting it thanks for catching my type-o
     
  3. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think Earth is at least a little bit over two weeks old. (Those who gets what I mean...thou art welcome...)Lovest thou in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
     
  4. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    thesuperjagI get ya,well done look how far you have come from the start of this conversation on shoutbox. I hope,as a babe in Christ. what you learned from this discussion is no matter how good the arguments sound Gods word is always right. To believe the 6000 year old world you must ignore the Word and common sense given you by God. You end up with two choices you can choose to:1. throw out at least 3 verses in 2 Peter (ignoring Peter was a favored disciple)2. assume all verse's that say before the foundation of world don't mean what they say (thus changing Gods word)3.believe God didn't mean what he says when he tells us he did not create the world to be void4.Toss aside a 50% chance the Hebrew word Hayha means "became"5. forget common sense get rid of all science,of archaeology, geology, physics or any other science that shows different.To support the argument of a 6000 year old world 1. a 50% chance hayha means "WAS"2.mans tradition sayBoy this is a toughy:)When you stick to the Word apply the grey matter that is IN YOUR FOREHEADyou will always find truth.
     
  5. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (kriss)
    thesuperjagI get ya,well done look how far you have come from the start of this conversation on shoutbox. I hope,as a babe in Christ. what you learned from this discussion is no matter how good the arguments sound Gods word is always right.
    [​IMG] That is true Kriss. The thing is, mankind thinks they are right, and we Christians are "stupid and blind."(kriss)
    To believe the 6000 year old world you must ignore the Word and common sense given you by God. You end up with two choices you can choose to:1. throw out at least 3 verses in 2 Peter (ignoring Peter was a favored disciple)2. assume all verse's that say before the foundation of world don't mean what they say (thus changing Gods word)3.believe God didn't mean what he says when he tells us he did not create the world to be void4.Toss aside a 50% chance the Hebrew word Hayha means "became"5. forget common sense get rid of all science,of archaeology, geology, physics or any other science that shows different.
    1. If we throw out at least 3 verses..."well then lets just throw the whole bible out of this world..."and give our right to the Roman Catholic...I think not, I think I rather stick with what He says at John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. and John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.2. Of course that's Lucy's work...3. That's what Lucy want us to believe...4. That's why I don't push myself upon ye, that has a higher education in the bible than I...because I don't know Hebrew...but am alway to learn...I'm that sober... In short, I rather learn than to force and think "that I'm right"5. All science? Please don't even say evolution is science, cause it speakest lies. Evolution should be placed in religion, ...as for either science...I do not know to be honest...Physics? never done that, nor geology, nor archaeology...but I don't mind learning.(kriss)
    To support the argument of a 6000 year old world 1. a 50% chance hayha means "WAS"2.mans tradition say
    1. Same hebrew word...read above + look outside right now...it's nowhere near in ruins...2. Forget man's tradition...its all Lucy's deceitfulness...Aside the fact on my above post... MANKIND can not understand the love of God, nor can they understand how I got the age of Earth "two weeks old"...MANKIND can never understand a child of God.In short... I Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.P.S. Another reason that I don't believe that Earth is 6000 years old is cause I barely believe in dinosaurs...(cause of their bones).Lovest thou in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour...
     
  6. kendal

    kendal New Member

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Betchevy, i was just giving a reason why the word was, can be translated both "be" and "was".Maybe i should study it more fully, before making arguementGod bless!!
     
  7. betchevy

    betchevy New Member

    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see ,Kendal, but don't you agree that how is seems to sound best is not as important as how it is... what the original language says is the only thing that is important.... that is the true meaning... otherwise we are believing the tales of men instead of the truth of God...?
     
  8. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    To a certain degree like Kriss said thou can still understand the Word of God, the truth...without it...but still got to love thy God. [​IMG]...Sooner or later, I'm going to need those...or another person to study. [​IMG]Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.If Earth was millions of years...then the Earth is about...at least a thousaand days old. [​IMG]
     
  9. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    In reference to Betchevy's Jeremiah Post. This post also contains my terms for continuing in this conversation. In order to get the full understanding of this passage, one ought to, as with the 2Peter passage, begin at the least, at the start of the chapter so as to know to whom this address is meant for and of what it is speaking. Betchevy, I do not know where you, or anyone else here, is deriving such conclusions that there was a prior earth age. There is no clear teaching within scripture regarding the such, nor is there to be found, as is supposed, in the original languages of the Scriptures. But I shall play this game and see where it will lead us. Jeremiah 4:1-21 has much to say regarding the passage that you bring up, and I believe that it will help us to understand what is being said in the verses that you have chosen to quote as support for a pre-Adamic race of men and angels. To whom is this passage addressed? We find the answer in Jeremiah 4:1 – If you will return, O Israel,” says the LORD, “Return to Me; and if you will put away your abominations out of My sight, Then you shall not be moved…” Judah was steeped into idol worship, and God is about to send, just as He did with the Northern tribes of Israel through Assyria, Judah into captivity through Babylon. Yet here we see a merciful God giving them yet another chance to repent and turn back to Him. There is a call to the worship of the true God in verse 3, “For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: Break up your fallow (untilled) ground, and do not sow among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your hearts.” The call to breaking up the untilled ground is a call to being productive in their spiritual lives where the spiritual weeds have grown and overtaken their hearts, turning them from the true God to the idols they were now worshipping. The result of not listening? Verse 4 “…Let My fury come forth like fire, and burn so that no one can quench it., because of the evil of your doings.” Of course, Judah will not repent before it is too late, and there will be an invasion, and their cities will be laid to waste because of the anger of God towards their sinfulness: 4:7-8, “The lion has come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of nations is on his way. He has gone forth from his place to make your land desolate. Your cities will be laid waste without inhabitant. For this, clothe yourself with sackcloth, and lament and wail. For the fierce anger of the Lord has not turned back from us.” Jeremiah references the false prophets in verse 10: “Then I said, ‘Ah, Lord God! Surely you have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, “You shall have peace,” Whereas the sword reaches to the heart…’” Chapter 5:12 gives explanation of this supposed deception from God (which it is not from God, but from the false prophets) “They have lied about the LORD, and said, ‘It is not He. [Referring to the prophecy of destruction.] Neither will evil come upon us, nor shall we see sword or famine. And the prophets become wind, for the word is not in them. Thus shall it be done to them…’”Anything so far about a missing earth age? Not that I see… let’s continue… Verses 11-13 continue to tell of the pending judgment, the coming invasion. Verse 14 is a plea for repentance: “O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?”Verse 15-18, again, of the inevitable judgment that is going to come. Jeremiah laments for the coming judgment and for the destruction of his people:
    O my soul, my soul! I am pained in my very heart! My heart makes a noise within me; I cannot hold my peace, because you have heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war. Destruction upon destruction is cried, for the whole land is plundered. Suddenly my tents are plundered, and my curtains in a moment. How long will I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?
    Jeremiah laments for the coming destruction and he gives the reason for the coming destruction of his people.
    For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
    I fail to see the point that you are trying to make here, Betchevy. Why do you interject your phrase: “You had better look back at the first Earth Age. Satan rebelled and I destroyed the entire earth age God is reminding us that His people have been foolish, and always listened to men, and their foolish traditions. They prefer not to listen to God's Word, but the foolish doctrines of men's traditions.”? No where in context here do we see that God is telling his people to look back to a previous earth age. No where is such taught in scripture. But, I suppose that you borrow the such from the next verse…
    I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens they had no light.
    This is not referring back to creation. Nothing in the context would lend to the such. Although Jeremiah is borrowing the language, he is referring specifically to the coming destruction that God is bringing. “Jeremiah may be borrowing the language, but the description in its context is not of creation in Genesis 1:2, but judgment on the land of Israel and its cities (v.20). The invaders left it desolate of the previous form and void of inhabitants due to slaying and flight (v.25). The heavens gave no light, possibly due to smoke from the fires that were destroying cities. (vv. 7,20).” (Macarthur Study Bible, p. 1068)Let’s continue on here: Verses 24-26 tells of the results of the judgment of the Lord upon His people:1. The men fled or were destroyed2. The natural animals and vegetation fled or were destroyed. 3. All of the cities were destroyedA once fruitful land became desolate, the reason? V. 26: At the presence of the LORD, By His fierce anger.There is not mention here, Betchevy, of a pre-earth-age that God is wanting to make His people mindful of as a warning that He will bring about this judgment. The Tohu va Bohu that you mention has a variety of meanings that greatly depend, as any word, no matter what the language, upon the context. I will show the definition for each one, Tohu and Bohu. Tohu: The word is derived from a root word which means to lie waste. Depending upon the context, the word can mean: Formlessness, Confusion, Unreality, Emptiness. How do we determine which definition best fits the passage? We have to look at the context surrounding it. Genesis 1:1,2 reads: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without from (tohu) and void (bohu); and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Does God create something that is in confusion? We read that God is not the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33, so this cannot be the case. Does God give any reason within the whole context of Genesis chapter 1 to believe that there is any pre-Adamic race which is the cause of the supposed confusion here? No. There is no support for the such. Does God give any reason to believe that billions of years have passed between 1:1 and 1:2? Not anywhere that I have seen in all of Scripture. What about Unreality? I doubt that I should gain any opposing arguments against this, but I will make a point here. Was the creation of the world a real event, or was it something that was “unreality”? Of course we all know that the such was a real event. This goes to show that this word can have a meaning, a definition that does not fit in the context here. Thus, is it possible that the definition you give it here could be the wrong one? It is very possible. In fact, I say it is so. What about Emptiness or formlessness? I would say that either one of these will cleanly and rightly fit the context. God had not yet created any life that could inhabit the earth, and thus we could say that it was empty. God had not made any of the lands appear, no mountains, trees, no distinctive shape, thus we could say that it was formless. Both clearly fit the context, and neither offer for a pre-Adamic race of angels and men. You would have to derive such a conclusions elsewhere, you cannot get it within these first two verses of Scripture, for there is nothing in between verse one and two to lend that there was such a passage of time as supposed, no “And Thens” no “And after a period of times”. This a deduction, and eisegtical conclusion that has no support in all of scripture. What of Bohu?: The Strongs defines Bohu in the following way: It is from the root meaning to be empty. It can mean Emptiness, Void, or Waste. Emptiness would best fit the context, but what of Void? That is the popular suggestion of most translators. Void, according to m-w.com: a) Not occupied [​IMG] Not inhabited C) Containing nothing D) Being without something specified E) Vain, Useless F) Of No Legal Force or Effect (void contract)Which definition should we suppose for the word Void, according to the context? We know that nothing has been created up to this point in way of life-forms. Might I suggest that the following be used to define Void used by the translators in this verse: A, B, C, D. God does not create something that is useless, so that cannot be the correct definition here, and we know that God did in fact put this ball of water to use, and No Legal binding… that definition does not make sense here in this context. And as seen with Tohu, there are definitions that do not fit a word in a particular context. So, might I suggest that from this brief study of these two words that Genesis 1:2 might be read in the following way: The earth was formless and uninhabited. This does not lend to a supposed chaotic state, and it certainly lends nothing to a pre-adamic race, while it does stay true to the Word of God in its proper context. Betchevy, you go on to say, of Jeremiah 4:23:
    God is telling us here exactly what He did to the earth at one time. This was in the first earth age. The earth spoken of here, is the "erets" as given in the Hebrew text. In Strong's Hebrew dictionary # 776.
    And you suppose to support it with your following statements, which for the sake of time and space, I will not bother quoting. God is not telling what He has done at one time, but telling what He is going to do with the nation of Judah and the coming invasion. (sigh) I might say that this is a good place to learn how not to study the Bible. You go on to say:
    God continues through Jeremiah to speak of the end of this earth age... Our Nebuhannezar is just over the hill and again God will scourge the earth... He will rid it of the rudiments, the evil.
    Using Jeremiah 4:28 as your proof text. But God has not switched from speaking of the coming invasion of Judah to the end times! God is still very much talking about the destruction that was coming for that time. Read the rest of the chapter: Jeremiah 4:29-31:The whole city shall flee from the noise of the horsemen and bowmen. (What horsemen and bowmen? In context, it is speaking of the men of the Babylonian army.) They shall go into thickets and climb up on the rocks. Every city shall be forsaken. And not a man shall dwell in it. And when you are plundered (God is speaking to a specific group of people, but whom? Us? No… Judah.) what will you do? Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, though you enlarge your eyes with paint, in vain you will make yourself fair; you lovers will despise you; they will seek your life. (God is making reference to Judah playing the harlot among the nations, those who once played with her will now hate her and destroy her.) For I have heard a voice as of a woman in labor, the anguish as of her who brings forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion bewailing herself (could this be speaking of Judah?!) She spreads her hands, saying, ‘Woe is me now, for my soul is weary because of my murderers!’This is specifically talking about the event of the Babylonian captivity, not about the end times. This concludes my statement to Bechevy concerning her post on Jeremiah.
    Posted by TheSuperJag, April 25, 2007, 11:45AM As a babe in Christ, I would prefer if you keep me out of this, since I can only know what I only know...I took their persective (conversation or whatever)(lack of better words) and put that as an "what if" in the shoutbox...To be honest with thee, we all (us that was on the shoutbox) received Christ in our hearts, but all at different time. Before then, Our comfort zone is of this world. If ye think about it, since the Lord is perfect, did not lack...etc... our flesh is of this world. But our soul, does not need it but only our God. Not many will take their time for finding the truth. However, things do get very deep. We can't just shove the Word of God into our throat, WE must take our time. ONE step at a time. Not in a whole rush thingy. The truth does hurt, because our flesh is comfortable with lies...
    If you wish to remain out of this, TheSuperJag, then by all means do. I do not believe that I am shoving the Word of God into anyone’s throat, and I do believe that this issue is one worth addressing. If the world is indeed millions of years old, as the majority here seem to claim, then that means that when God said that everything was “indeed very good”, then He was saying that those who rebelled in their spiritual bodies, and who were in sin against God were very good to Him, He was saying that the millions of bones that lay all over the earth at that point from the supposed destruction of the previous earth-age was very good. God is calling sin and death good. Look at the verse, He says that EVERYTHING is very good. Genesis 1:31 “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” And this was said on the sixth day, as the verse continues: “So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”My conclusion from this is that at this point, Satan had not yet rebelled. There is no death. There is no sin. Everything that God had made is very good.
    Made by Kriss April 25, 2007 2:21PMHow can we show when you refuse to read what we give you I gave you a link to nephilim from Bulinger (a scholar) it is an exact copy of the appendix in the companion Bible have you read it?its one page. We have explained language for example in my mark study (not the name marK) I show where the English word mark(as in spot) the hebrew/greek actually uses 16 different words all translated to English as the word mark. Example:Ruth 3:4And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt doStrongs # 03045 yada` {yaw-dah'} a root word1) to know a) to know, learn to know [​IMG] to perceive c) to perceive and see, find out and discern d) to discriminate, distinguish e) to know by experience f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess g) to consider 2) to know, be acquainted with 3) to know (a person carnally) 4) to know how, be skilful in You can plainly see that meaning of mark here in the original language has nothing to do with making a spot(place)Is it necessary to know this to get the jest of the story No. but it paints a much clearer picture here if we understand she was to be wise,skillful maybe even knew him in carnal or intimate way.Now if I had said to you the bible say Ruth may have slept with him you would argue it does not say that in my Bible but it does say that in the Hebrew so you see how you can gain details by knowing language. It expands upon a subject. It teaches you the lengths Ruth was willing to go.Paints a bigger picture if you will.This is why language can be important. The bible interprets itself you.Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Is God not interpreting for us in the above verse? Does that mean every time he says stars it means angles? To know this you have to go find the original word used here for stars. Then if you find all the places that word was used then you know which times he met angles and which times he just met stars. As I said to just see the text you have and say God just said this is to limit God. And you are mistaken all bible scholars know this. They just don't teach it.
    I believe that I have addressed the issue of Tohu and Bohu thoroughly in my response to Jeremiah 4:22-28 above. Kriss, I simply do not have time to debate other authors and extra-biblical material. My contention here is that the WORD OF GOD does not teach a pre-adamic age in which the angels and men rebelled against God. The authors you handed me must go from the scriptures to support their claims, or their claims are not legitimate. I am not discussing this with them, though. I am discussing this with you, and I ask that you do one thing: Use the word of God, otherwise, you will have my leave, and I shall not debate this anymore. The word of God, not nephilim from Bulinger, is my final authority. If the Word of God teaches a pre-adamic age, then I shall whole-heartedly embrace it. All of the other posts appear to be answered in these three posts that I have made. If there is one that you want to draw my attention to specifically, let me know and I shall address that one as well. I fear to go on as I am would lead to repetition, and a serious case of boredom by any who are following along here. Doulos i ChristosWriter
     
  10. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    I will not remark on Bets Jeremiah as she can do that I don't think I ever quoted Jeremiah.As far as Bulinger yes I quoted his work as any bible scholar has referenced his work.I find it interesting you quoted me in the above box which was about the languages from another post not this subject in gen. as far as the nephilim post it was from a bible appendix. I am not sure which subject you are debating me on here If you do not believe there were nephelium then pray tell me where the giants came from,if not Sons of God and the daughters of men ? If you are saying the world is 6000 years old. Show me scripture that says so,and don't give me a run down on Genisis as 2 Peter already says one day is a thousand years.Making 6000 years impossible and if you are saying we did not exist before this age explain "knew you before the foundations of the world.
     
  11. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Bets Jeremiah" is just as much for her as for anyone else, as it is dealing with context as well as those two words everyone tries to make so much of. 6,000 to 10,000 is derived from tracing the ages of men who are listed in genealogies throughout the Bible. It is also derived from known time periods of when such persons and nations existed, such as Moses, Isaiah, Pharoahs, Babylon and other such peoples and nations. I could attempt to find a document that has this already worked out, but I do not have the time to calculate the age of men from here back. It is a generally accepted fact in Christendom that if one were to trace the genealogies back to Adam, they end up between 6,000-10,000 years. Our debate is not this though, it matters not how old the earth is in this debate; but whether or not there was a previous age before Adam and whether or not the Scriptures teach such. I have shown that 2 Peter clearly refers to the judgment of God in Noah's time and that Jeremiah is not in reference to creation. Where else in Scripture do you suppose that God is teaching us that there is a pre-adamic age?
     
  12. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    I never quoted Jermiah Im sure Bet was making a point from a different prespective.You havent shown anything in Peter you simply disagree with me which is fine tracing generations simply shows the age of men in this age it doesn't prove or disprove anything. So I guess we just have to agree to disagree sense To go on would require more reasearch on your part and you have stated you do not have time. I have made my case and there is no need to repeat.
     
  13. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    What specific reference is there in 2 Peter that lends to not believing that it is speaking of Noah's flood? Is it verse 5 and 6 of chapter 3? It says:
    For this they willfully forget that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
    Is it that the world "perished" that you do not believe this to be in reference to Noah's flood? I have shown that verse in Genesis 9:11
    Thus I establish my covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.
    Peter makes no mention that he is speaking of a pre-adamic race destroyed by a flood that has not been taught clearly in scripture, and thus, in the CONTEXT of scripture, we can only honestly take him to be referring to Noah's flood. How is this not so?
     
  14. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a quick reference to the starting question of this post.
    The scientist have proven the earth and the dinosaurs bones are millions of years old, what does the Bible say ... ?
    My intent is to show that the WORD of GOD does not support millions of years. If we are to stay on topic with this thread, we must debate what the Word of God says, not what Bulinger is saying, or anyone else, but the Word of God alone. It is fine to quote an outside source to back up what you are saying about the Word of God, but the one speaking must be you and not the outside source.
     
  15. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    I told you it is clearer in the original that is why the wycliffe bible I quoted above says it was hidden Noahs flood was not hidden you just refuse to see it combined with the verse about knowing before foundations of the world and hayha meaing became and knowing Satan was rebelling from the begining all paints a picture. if you dont see it thats fine but you cant disprove it either.
     
  16. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nor can you prove it. If there is a pre-adamic race, this affects theology and doctrine a great deal! No longer is the reason for God calling everything perfect on day six of creation due to everything being perfect, rather, everything is tainted with sin, as there is death everywhere. It clearly states in 1 Corinthians 15 that death came into the world by the first man, Adam. This too is a lie if death was already in existence. 1 Corinthians 15: 20-22
    But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has bcome the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. for sinse by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
    When does this passage say death entered into the picture? In a pre-existing age before Adam? Do you understand that if the "souls" of the men had rebelled against God in that age, they would be under the curse of death? But death was not in the picture before the sin of Adam. Yet, with your theology, we find death all around the place, dead dinosaurs, souls under the curse of death, everything! Again, another flaw in your predestination, no, not another, but one you have no addressed: If God foreknowing us before the foundation of the world means that we were in existence at the time that He foreknew us, then that would mean that we existed before the world was ever created! But the Word of God says that it was Christ, not us, that was with God in the beginning. It places that distinguishing mark on Christ, not man. What then, is the breath of life that is breathed into Adam if not the beginning of his soul? Your argument falls apart all around, Kriss and Betchevy.
     
  17. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    exactly thats this age this flesh we were never in flesh before this age there was no flesh type death in spirit. Only the elect were predestined choosen before the foundations. It is not my theroy it actually was well known and acepted in early times before feel good doctrine took over the church when preachers understood the word and didnt learn it from theology cookie cutter schools
     
  18. writer4hisglory

    writer4hisglory New Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    at that time only after judgment takes place death is caused by sin committed in the flesh the spirit/soul can only be killed by Judgement from God
     
  20. Hylke

    Hylke New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    (writer4hisglory;9807)
    Just a quick reference to the starting question of this post. My intent is to show that the WORD of GOD does not support millions of years. If we are to stay on topic with this thread, we must debate what the Word of God says, not what Bulinger is saying, or anyone else, but the Word of God alone. It is fine to quote an outside source to back up what you are saying about the Word of God, but the one speaking must be you and not the outside source.
    So the point is not the age of the earth, but if the bible can be intepreted in way so that scientist are proven right? So basically in this debate, the assumption is made that the bible is 100% truthfull, that's not strange if you're a christian. But the other assumption that is made is much weirder, the assumption that any proof, can only be right if the bible says so, and therefore if the bible doesn't the proof must de nonsense.Now these two assumptions, that the bible is true, and that any truth is only true if the bible says so, may seem the same, but the first is simply that the bible writes about reality, while the other assumes that the bible dictates reality.Now I'd say, that you can't assume both, either the bible writes about reality, does not have to dictate it, and therefore any scientific knowledge cannot be denied because the bible can't contradict reality, or you assume that any scientific knowledge that, you think, contradicts the bible must be false because the bible is true.It's really a question of who dictates who, do you feel that we should interpret the bibleby means of scientific knowledge, or deny scientific knowledge by means of the bible.And that is not just a question of wether or not the bible supports the earths age of billions (not millions) of years, or not, but it is a way more fundamental question, which is the basic distinction between bible funamentalists and non-bible fundamentalists. Now you could discuss this for eternity, if one camp is a bible fundamentalist and the other camp is a non-bible fundamentalist, because neither one of the camps' view of the bible will support the arguments of the other person.
     
Loading...